Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Multiprocess Firefox

developer.mozilla.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 171 posts

Re: Multiprocess Firefox

#71

Post by pllbnk »

From the experience I've had with Chrome, I would say that process per tab is overhead. Sure, there are some benefits from having a few processes that are managing different parts of the system, but not hundreds of processes just for browsing. The way I use Firefox is that having 50 or more tabs open is normal for me, sometimes there are even hundreds of them. Currently Firefox works great and although there are some unresponsiveness during some workflows, they are not so annoying.

I am really worried about this change because I have used Firefox since its version 1.5 and am very familiar with all its problems and successes through the years.

Re: Multiprocess Firefox

#72

Post by ibotty »

firethief wrote: post #38
solve wrote: post #7

Goodbye RAM :) Or better for RAM, since I can now selectively kill and resume processes? Oh, I see it's not one process per tab. So does anyone know how I can more easily survive on 2GB with many tabs, other than by constantly killing processes?

My strategy is to periodically close Firefox and reopen it, to "hibernate" the tabs I'm not currently using. Between lazy tab restore and Chrome's process per tab memory overhead, Firefox is currently waaay better than Chrome for those of us coping with RAM Deficit Disorder and O(e^x) tab syndrome; I hope when the Fox gets process-per-tab they don't close that gap.

There's a plugin for that (tm). I use unload tab quiet successfully. The only problems I had were with pdfjs tabs.

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-us/firefox/addon/unloadtab/

Re: Multiprocess Firefox

#73

Post by sebcat »

pllbnk wrote: post #71

From the experience I've had with Chrome, I would say that process per tab is overhead. Sure, there are some benefits from having a few processes that are managing different parts of the system, but not hundreds of processes just for browsing. The way I use Firefox is that having 50 or more tabs open is normal for me, sometimes there are even hundreds of them. Currently Firefox works great and although there are some…

> The way I use Firefox is that having 50 or more tabs open is normal for me

I've never understood this. Isn't that what bookmarks are for?

Re: Multiprocess Firefox

#74

Post by bluemetal »

sebcat wrote: post #73
pllbnk wrote: post #71

From the experience I've had with Chrome, I would say that process per tab is overhead. Sure, there are some benefits from having a few processes that are managing different parts of the system, but not hundreds of processes just for browsing. The way I use Firefox is that having 50 or more tabs open is normal for me, sometimes there are even hundreds of them. Currently Firefox works great and although there are some…

> The way I use Firefox is that having 50 or more tabs open is normal for me I've never understood this. Isn't that what bookmarks are for?

Often you need to preserve some state that is lost when using bookmarks (e.g. scroll position, a confirmation message that will be lost on refresh, a paused game/video etc.)

Re: Multiprocess Firefox

#75

Post by rcthompson »

sebcat wrote: post #73
pllbnk wrote: post #71

From the experience I've had with Chrome, I would say that process per tab is overhead. Sure, there are some benefits from having a few processes that are managing different parts of the system, but not hundreds of processes just for browsing. The way I use Firefox is that having 50 or more tabs open is normal for me, sometimes there are even hundreds of them. Currently Firefox works great and although there are some…

> The way I use Firefox is that having 50 or more tabs open is normal for me I've never understood this. Isn't that what bookmarks are for?

Bookmarks, tabs, pinned tabs, etc. all sit at different places on the same continuous spectrum of UIs for saving web pages for later. Once you implement unloading of background tabs (which you can in FF via add-ons), they can start to look a lot like bookmarks.

Re: Multiprocess Firefox

#76

Post by pllbnk »

sebcat wrote: post #73
pllbnk wrote: post #71

From the experience I've had with Chrome, I would say that process per tab is overhead. Sure, there are some benefits from having a few processes that are managing different parts of the system, but not hundreds of processes just for browsing. The way I use Firefox is that having 50 or more tabs open is normal for me, sometimes there are even hundreds of them. Currently Firefox works great and although there are some…

> The way I use Firefox is that having 50 or more tabs open is normal for me I've never understood this. Isn't that what bookmarks are for?

With bookmarks you have to put additional time for organization and saving them. When I am researching something, I prefer just opening a bunch of tabs and they may stay open for quite a long time. When I am done, I close all of them. The main sites that I use daily, are usually bookmarked, yes.

Re: Multiprocess Firefox

#78

Post by 0xFFC »

Guys please don't do this, I hate chrome,not because it is almost perfect internet browser, just because it is almost an entire OS runs on top of my own OS(I just want a browser not os).I am afraid Firefox will end up where chrome going right now.

Re: Multiprocess Firefox

#79

Post by odiroot »

hackuser wrote: post #44
ladzoppelin wrote: post #8

I really hope Mozilla keeps NoScript alive. .. Please help the maker get it ported to support Multiprocess Firefox.

Is NoScript really at risk? That would be a big deal.

Yep, add-ons that connect background logic and "on-site" logic are going to have a lot of issues. Some APIs change from sync to async (which is good anyway). Some others are replaced or removed.

Re: Multiprocess Firefox

#80

Post by nitrogen »

_wmd wrote: post #42
suprgeek wrote: post #27

Please please test battery life impact while implementing the Multi-process stuff. I had to move away from Chrome just on the battery life issue. I suspect (but cannot conclusively prove) that the multi-process crap that Chrome has just drains your battery much faster. And yes I am perfectly aware of the supposed fix in Chrome for the battery killing bug.

There's no inherent reason why multiprocess would have a significant impact on energy, it just adds a relatively small amount of extra context switching and marshalling to what is already a huge pile of the same (your desktop OS). When the system is idle, or a page is rendered, the difference shouldn't be measurable.

Hypothetically, 50 processes all running separate unsynchronized wakeup timers and event loops could bring the processor out of sleep 50x more often than a single process.
Post reply on HN